[still_grokking]

You've just made an anti-argument to your own claim.

As people are people, real democracy would not be worse than the status quo as we're already ruled by people with lack of knowledge, reason, understanding and empathy.

But you can't for example corrupt the majority of all people. So real democracy would be at least in this point better.

By no means worse, but better in some regards is a clear win imho!

> lack of knowledge, reason, understanding and empathy.

[account-5]

I'd love to agree with you but people in general are easily manipulated on mass.

Currently the majority are too I'll informed to make appropriate decisions about anything, making them even easily to manipulate. I'll include myself in this.

For real democracy to work it's more than giving all people the right to vote on all things. They need to all be informed about all the issues in an impartial way in a way that those people can fully understand. That I'd say is impossible.

[Joeri]

The point of democracy is not that everybody is perfectly informed to come to the logically best outcome. The point is that it gives a people agency over their own future. If they choose to be ill-informed and pick bad candidates, they own the consequences. Democracy does not lead to the best outcome, but to the most fair one.

[laratied]

The only real value I can see with democracy is in being able to pull the lever and get a new set of dice to role if things go bad.

Beyond that it seems to be mostly mythology and nonsense. You either have smart good rulers or you don't. At least if we don't they only have so much time to do damage and we try again.

The idea democracy gives people agency over their future I would put in the category of mythology.

[phs318u]

> they own the consequences

No. We own the consequences.

> the most fair one.

The most fair, yes, probably. The fairest? No. Though I’ll admit I’m stumped (though in good company I suspect) as to how to possibly achieve the fairest outcome. I suspect it’s a platonic ideal, barring a Star Trek reality coming to life.

[Loquebantur]

Not having the solution ready doesn't mean it wouldn't exist at all.

Humans are very diverse in their abilities and society needs to account for that. Division of labour is key here.

Not everybody needs to decide on or be informed about everything. What is necessary is transparency, accountability and the resulting trust in those responsible.

Our societies are so messed up in that regard, we don't even consider that being possible anymore. But it is.

[account-5]

That's certainly what's wrong with democracy.

[still_grokking]

People?

[account-5]

No. None of this stuff works without people. There's a reason we have representative democracies instead of true democracies. Why we elect people to make those decisions.

I'm not saying it's working but I don't think true democracy would work any better either because the underlying issue with democracy is you're relying on ill informed people, people who don't understand either the issue upon which they vote or the consequences of a vote either way, to make decisions.

People easily manipulated by social media filter bubbles and ridiculous slogans. Or in our current democracies just money.

I think democracy is probably the best we've had to date but it's showing its flaws.

[still_grokking]

> I'd love to agree with you but people in general are easily manipulated on mass.

It's even easier with single persons or small groups… Just given them a little bit money or alternatively aim with a gun at them or someone they love. This method wouldn't scale to a whole society.

> Currently the majority are too I'll informed to make appropriate decisions about anything […]

> They need to all be informed about all the issues in an impartial way in a way that those people can fully understand.

And you really think the "decision makers" are anyhow better informed, smarter, more altruistic and don't just think about their own well being most of the time? That's a very naïve stand, to be honest.

[account-5]

> And you really think the "decision makers" are anyhow better informed, smarter, more altruistic and don't just think about their own well being most of the time? That's a very naïve stand, to be honest.

At no point did I say anything of the sort, and I'm not sure how you've extrapolated that from what I've said.